Justice101
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,380
- Reaction score
- 15,550
The defense is undoubtedly going to argue that bullet didn't come from his gun but from a gun like his. The unspent bullet has extraction marks, which can lead to "subjective" results when determining the gun from which the bullet came. It's not ballistic testing where the results are far more definitive. It's just the PCA, but as an observer, I am struggling to find something that definitively indicates RA is BG.
And I do agree the bullet is significant. That's probably why it took several years to get an AW. But there will be several experts who dispute that anyone can determine which bullet a gun came from based solely on extraction marks. I am really hoping the SW turns up additional evidence or that LE already has significant evidence that it is not disclosing to the public.
A lot of PCA's don't even have any true physical evidence. It can be simply someone identified visually in a line up (or looking at multiple choice faces in a book) or even someone seen/identified fleeing from the scene and/or description of car.
Arrest warrants are sworn and are taken seriously but by law, you don't need to have all the proof, just "probable" cause that the individual is involved. Judge signs off on it.
I agree that the bullet chamber cycling marks, the eyewitness descriptions and even the video and audio are NOT ENOUGH to convict him. I suspect they will have more.. and a lot more if and when it comes to a trial at the point of discovery. They may even not present the bullet chamber cycling results at trial.
Last edited: